November 6, 2008

88 comments:

With regards to Sen. Obama's win I think part of America speaks; "The Dow has lost 929 points, or 9.7%, in the last two days alone. The percentage loss was its largest since 1987. The S&P 500 is down 10% in the last two days with the Nasdaq down 9.6%." (Andrew Rosenbaum, MSN) So apprantly even the knowledge of an Obama presidency hasn't given faith to our stumbling economy or its investors. Obama's election to the highest office in the Nation really didn't boost moral where it counts. In otherwords it was just a normal election and despite his promises like Max Bialystock of "The Producers," where Bialystock sells 1000% of his show to investors, so the investors on wall street somewhat comprehend that Sen Obama might have sold more than we know about.

Ann says...Reset. I'm at cruel neutrality again. And I mean to stay in this position until 2012.

oh No, elections have consequences. you lusted after Bami, wanting to appease some faux white racial guilt, now you need to live with your choices for a bit, maybe through his first SCOTUS pick. I know you'll love the choice. or we might let you off the hook when they abolish secret ballots in Union elections or create a Fairness Doctrine for Blogs :)

When we're convinced you're convinced, then we'll let you off the hook :)

I have half a mind to write a serious op-ed explaining to people that there is no earthly way that the "Fairness" Doctrine could apply to blogs. It only ever applied to bands of communication owned by the government, which are FM and AM and the network television stations.

By the way, there's no way that the thing will pass. Obama has said he is against it. Furthermore, radio and television are big-money, powerful entities that stand to lose a ton of money should such an abomination become law.

"There was some nervousness that the Clintons, with an eye on 2012, might try to steal the show, perhaps by demanding a noisy floor vote that would show how close Hillary had come to winning the nomination. The Obamaites figured that the Clintons could be counted on to do just enough to say that they tried to help Obama—but maybe not so much that he won in November. The Obama staff was petrified because nobody had seen a copy of Bill Clinton's speech, recalled Michael Sheehan, the veteran Democratic speech coach. There were two possible explanations: one, that Clinton planned to say something controversial that he didn't want to share beforehand; and, two, that Clinton was continually rewriting his speech. Knowing Clinton's work habits, Sheehan assured them it was the latter.

In truth, Hillary Clinton was on better terms with John McCain than she was with Barack Obama. The former First Lady and the four-term senator from Arizona had downed shots together on Senate junkets; they regarded each other as grizzled veterans of the political wars and shared a certain disdain for Obama as flashy and callow. In early June, on the night she officially lost the Democratic nomination, Hillary had enjoyed a long and friendly phone conversation with McCain. When Hillary finally did meet with Obama at the home of Sen. Dianne Feinstein a few days later, she told Obama that she did not want to go through a full-scale vetting for vice president unless he was serious about choosing her. The vetting process was onerous, requiring very full financial disclosure, and even included questions about romantic and marital indiscretions. As the financial crisis deepened in the summer, Eric Holder, Obama's chief veep vetter, added more questions about mortgages and problematic financial deals. "

I don't recall rational Obama supporters calling it a blowout. But it is their short memories. It was the first election called before midnight in 12 years. And consider this - Obama broke Bush's 2004 all-time record for most votes, over 64 Million (Bush got over 62M). And McCain got a few million fewer votes than John Kerry that same year. In an election where more Americans voted than ever before, these are impressive numbers. And in terms of winning cities, Obama did dominate. He seemed to win in ever city with a population over 200K. Amazing job.

And very soon, there will no longer be analog broadcast television, so even the networks are no longer operating on the government band. Or am I wrong about this?

wrong. They are moving to digital broadcast on an adjacent piece of spectrum.

I have half a mind to write a serious op-ed explaining to people that there is no earthly way that the "Fairness" Doctrine could apply to blogs.

Yeah, yeah, I half said that to rile up Ann, However...

look at the censorship in place at youtube where they show Jihadi snuff films, but pull MEMRI translations of HAMAS TV, because of racism complaints.

It is not impossible to put a system in place that requires web hosters or google or yahoo to self regulate and pull blogs automaticly after X number of email complaints. Then watch the Kos kids google-bomb sites.

"wrong. They are moving to digital broadcast on an adjacent piece of spectrum."

Aha. I suspected as much after I wrote my comment.

"And consider this - Obama broke Bush's 2004 all-time record for most votes, over 64 Million (Bush got over 62M). And McCain got a few million fewer votes than John Kerry that same year. In an election where more Americans voted than ever before, these are impressive numbers."

Yes, but have you factored in how much the voting age population of the US has increased since 2004? I'm not saying Obama's victory wasn't extraordinary, but it doesn't seem like a statistic worth crowing about.

So why do people (and I've heard both right and left wing people say this) keep calling the election "a landslide"?

Has somebody called it "watershed" yet? I haven't heard watershed in a long time.

I did hear some really nasty audio driving home from work on KFI AM. It was taped this afternoon at an impromptu protest against prop 8. Man, those guys sound ready to start blowing up Mormon churches or something.

"As long as families (the foundation of society) are in shambles, conditions won’t improve much. But with Obama in office, white liberals can feel good about themselves and blacks can feel proud, fatherless children and dead babies be damned."

MCG -- I don't know a ton about this, which is why I won't really be writing that op-ed, but from what I understand there is a band that old-school television operates on. The same with FM and AM, which is why the stations have numbers. There's only so much space on the band.

With cable, that's not the case. There is tons and tons of space available. Hence, my kid is able to select from three different 24-hour cartoon networks.

I'm not going to register with NYT just so I can read their stupid articles. I've put my hoofie down and that's it.

A normal win they say? So corrupt wins where dead people vote, wherein activists vote more than once and where they're move to contested states in large numbers then vote more than once as non-residents and in states where exceedingly partisan Secretaries of State cannot be bothered to do the job of properly supervising the administration of election laws because it's just too hard, and wins by campaigns where credit card contributions that break historic records are not checked for legality and where none of this is investigated for criminality as if it were occurring somewhere in the third world, say Kenya, and wherein quite nearly all the important organs of the national media throw vast sums to the effort of viciously ripping to shreds one party's candidates while simultaneously protecting from close examination the candidates from the other party, are normal wins? If that's normal with you then I suppose it must be normal for me too. That's OK, I abide in a largely deaf world and I'll be running things mostly on mute anyway. Especially with media that requires information from me before proceeding. NYT is going to have to decide if they want to be read or not.

I wish this shiny new president other people elected all the best, blowout or not, mandate or not, but Homie don't play dat with all of his enablers. I'll form my views about what's going on without the help of NYT, since I must register to read those absurd manipulators of information.

Pardon me please, I have an aquarium to thin, the fishies hardly have room to swim.

All of that money, an army of rabidly dedicated disciples, all of that media assistance, an uninspiring opponent, an unpopular sitting president, and sudden and severe financial crisis---and he ekes out a normal win.

I think the issue is that there is no limitation. If you have a 100,000 jigawatt AM radio station at 660 on the AM dial, I can't have one for hundreds of miles there, or near there. Same with the television. Remember the old dials? Well, those were the spaces available.

With cable, since there is no property limitation, the govern has nothing that it can profess to own. Therefore, the old basis for the "Fairness" Doctrine ceases to exist.

Note that the government never tried to do "fairness" with newspapers or books. It had no ostensible ownership interest in the printing presses.

I don't think the government can impose its fairness on satellite. I can see an argument about satellites as public goods or some such, but, again, the whole thing arises from a governmental ownership interest in a band of communication. There is no ownership here. So I think the basis doesn't exist for satellite communication, unless it somehow comes through a government-owned entity.

Chip Ahoy: So corrupt wins where dead people vote, wherein activists vote more than once and where they're move to contested states in large numbers then vote more than once as non-residents and in states where exceedingly partisan Secretaries of State cannot be bothered to do the job of properly supervising the administration of election laws because it's just too hard, and wins by campaigns where credit card contributions that break historic records are not checked for legality and where none of this is investigated for criminality as if it were occurring somewhere in the third world, say Kenya, and wherein quite nearly all the important organs of the national media throw vast sums to the effort of viciously ripping to shreds one party's candidates while simultaneously protecting from close examination the candidates from the other party, are normal wins?

If they're going to bring the doctrine back they should include newspapers too. After all, newspapers use federally funded roads and highways for distribution for their hardcopy products. If it's good enough for talk radio, it's good enough for the NYT.

So corrupt wins where dead people vote, wherein activists vote more than once and where they're move to contested states in large numbers then vote more than once as non-residents and in states where exceedingly partisan Secretaries of State cannot be bothered to do the job of properly supervising the administration of election laws because it's just too hard, and wins by campaigns where credit card contributions that break historic records are not checked for legality and where none of this is investigated for criminality as if it were occurring somewhere in the third world, say Kenya, and wherein quite nearly all the important organs of the national media throw vast sums to the effort of viciously ripping to shreds one party's candidates while simultaneously protecting from close examination the candidates from the other party, are normal wins?

Essentially... yes.

You know... I called B.S. on the "good old days" as described at church when I was probably all of 13 years old. The "good old days" of honest politics makes those pastors and church ladies seem uncommonly clear-eyed about the previous moral age.

The NYT (and WaPo and WSJ) really are great resources for our nation. I know the right wing complains. And, it is true that the NYT makes plenty of mistakes.

But, this piece used AEI as the core of the story, but didn't even mention that they are right leaning.

And, I was very strongly struck by their Sunday issue a couple weeks ago. They had full pages, side by side, that compared BHO and McCain. And, around the text they had blurbs that referred to past stories the NYT had done about both candidates during the campaign. The McCain stories were much more flattering than the BHO pieces.

At first I didn't realize these blurbs were references to past stories. So, as I scanned the blurb titles I was struck by how they were much more critical of BHO. I thought it was odd that they would be going after BHO because the NYT is supposedly in the tank. Then when I realized that these blurbs were references to past stories I was struck by the way the NYT had been very critical of BHO.

And, then I was struck by the fact that any time the NYT went after McCain (or Cindy) we heard cries from the right. But, their record of frequently going after BHO never got much attention (although I do recall that the BHO campaign had an extremely long rebuttal to the NYT piece about the Exelon nuke company. I also recall that the BHO folks had a detailed response to a piece about BHO's legislative work. And, there was the time when the NYT questioned BHO's honesty by implying he overstated his past drug use. But, there was never a big, widely repeated tantrum from BHO supporters that would match the response from the crybaby, victimology, professional-conservative Rs.)

That Sunday edition, seeing the compilation of past McCain and BHO pieces, was very striking.

Stupe: I'll ask you to qualify your dissing of the Boomers, please. I'm a Boomer. I was even a Hippy--trekking in the Himalayas and all.

But I'm also a political and economic conservative who has voted Republican since Nixon.

I'm socially liberal, however, close to anarchistic on some issues, like what people get up to in their bedrooms or what they say or shout.

Obama reminds me of too many of the SDSers I used to contend with in university. Great big ideas with no grounding in reality and no respect for facts.

I hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Among the worst are troglodytes like Loafingoaf. He'll know when conservatives get really pissed because they will be embracing their Bibles and clutching their guns as they hunt him and his ilk down in the streets.

The 2008 numbers I used from uselection.org are listed as "Popular vote: Unofficial Electoral Vote: Projected" although they added the last couple states to the count. An addition error on my part corrected makes the total 2008 vote 121,207,153.

I see another set of numbers (I have millions running up and down my pages) which give a total of 121,991,910 but I don't have a source for them.

Regardless, the over 18 population has grown since 2004 probably 8+ million, so that factors in also. Maybe ACORN registering all those people didn't make all that much difference? Or maybe it did ....

Given that almost everyone has said that McCain's campaign was run badly, and Obama's "flawlessly" (NY Times. What a surprise.) and that Obama raised a gazillion (well > $600 million, from all over the world) dollars versus McCain's ... what ... $84 mill plus what Americans kicked in through the RNC? one might ask the question why was the race as close as it was?

Seven Machos said...I have half a mind to write a serious op-ed explaining to people that there is no earthly way that the "Fairness" Doctrine could apply to blogs. It only ever applied to bands of communication owned by the government, which are FM and AM and the network television stations.

One thing, though - most of us are hosted on Blogger or Wordpress for free. Unimaginably, for free, so many of us, and we don't know why, we take full advantage, but it can certainly be yanked out from under us with the flick of a finger.

I loved The Sentence! I saved it, just in case (well, I'm on the Hope train, you know) things go very badly and I can read it again. I'm not sure why I'd want to read it again...it was bad enough to live it.

Did anyone see this? I found it touching, but I'm generally a sap. However, it did make me wonder how things might have been if the "52" had been so willing to make nice and listen to different points of view when they were the "48". And yes, I realize we're talking about different numbers...

Paul Krugman, that rockin' Nobel laureate:Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.

Say the words!

Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.

Um-huh!

John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate.

Oh yes!

What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address — “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics” — has never rung truer.

Yes!

The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side.

"John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway."

Krugman and AlphaLiberal are right.Obama is a socialist and the majority of Americans voted for the US version of this deadly disease.

J-F Revel (emphasis mine):"All things considered, even the "classic" developed countries have for the past two centuries managed to progress mainly because of the almost constant union of capitalism and democracy, there exist certain cases where countries have "taken off" without democracy, at least for awhile, whereas this has never happened without capitalism.

In short, ...when all conceivable and variable combinations are taken into account, there is one ingredient that has revealed itself in practice to be absolutely incompatible with development: socialism.

From where, then, comes this refusal or incapacity to take into account and assimilate the less-than-mysterious teachings of the world's postwar economic history?"

Revel answers that the ideology of socialsim has been remarkably successful with the big lie, the "daily dose of falsehood needed to cope with the hard evidence that emanates from the inexorably real."

And yes, economists can tell the big lie, and even get Nobel Prizes for it.

In short, ...when all conceivable and variable combinations are taken into account, there is one ingredient that has revealed itself in practice to be absolutely incompatible with development: socialism.

Even if Obama were a socialist (and I have consistently asked and never received an answer, when you can name one industry Obama seeks to nationalize, then we can start seriously arguing whether Obama is a socialist or not), he is a "socialist" in the Western European Social Democracy mode.

If you claim this statement is as equally applicable to Sweden as the U.S.S.R., then you and the source you cite are simply idiots.

Even if Obama were a socialist (and I have consistently asked and never received an answer, when you can name one industry Obama seeks to nationalize, then we can start seriously arguing whether Obama is a socialist or not)

Nationalization of industry is one aspect of socialism, a term that has taken on multiple definitions. Obama's statements about re-distributing the wealth are hardly consistent with free market capitalism and are much closer to socialist theory than they are capitalist.

"Even if Obama were a socialist ...he is a "socialist" in the Western European Social Democracy mode."

Then we agree.Obama is a socialist.

"when you can name one industry Obama seeks to nationalize..."That's a completely false definition of socialist.

Re: SwedenIf the European Union were part of the USA, it would be among the poorest states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany (and the vast majority of the EU) have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia.

I was right. You are an idiot. The contention of your source was that "socialism" is incompatible with development. If you are including Western European social democracy in your definition of "socialist", then this conclusion is clearly untrue.

Some European nations may have a lower GDP than many states of the United States, but to claim that they are not developed, well functioning societies, is simply a bald-faced lie.

Obama's statements about re-distributing the wealth are hardly consistent with free market capitalism and are much closer to socialist theory than they are capitalist.

Aside from a few poorly worded statements (and remember the JTP statement was in the context of a 4% raise in the top marginal income tax rate--hardly a radical socialist concept), what policy proposals of Obama's are "socialist" (or more socialist than partially nationalizing some of our banks as GWB has done)?

Developed countries became soprecisely because of capitalism, plus or minus democracy.

Undeveloped countries cannot develop and have never become developed without capitalism. Under socialism, undeveloped countries flag, frequently suffering mass starvations requiring bauilourts form the West (see Africa, USSR).

Developed countries that later adopt socialism fall behind (see Cuba, and now the EU).

Developed countries that later adopt socialism fall behind (see Cuba, and now the EU).

Cuba was a kleptocracy where the government was bought and paid for by the New York Mafia (pretty much controlled by Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano) before the revolution.

Apparently, you can't read the documents you provide for support. It was your contention that there is one ingredient that has revealed itself in practice to be absolutely incompatible with development: socialism. Not that development will be less rapid, but that it is absolutely incompatible

If you want to claim that Europe has not developed since it adopted "socialism", as you define it, be my guest. But it just proves that you are a complete moron.

Oh and btw, by your definition China is still a socialist country. Certainly much more so than any country in Western Europe, so citing it as an example of the triumph of capitalism (if you are claiming the EU is mired in deadly socialism) simply defies reality.

Anything over 300 is a landslide, and this was a landslide. 364 electoral votes. Biggest vote tally for a dem, won 2 states not won since 1964.

And a much bigger win than Bill fucking Clinton ever had. Don't forget it. Hillary would have lost this thing, and every republican I know acknowledges this. They would have destroyed her chances with all of the unseemly sex stuff.

What, is the goal of this post to encourage anger and obnoxiousness?

Obama won a huge landslide(and 9 states that Bush won in 2004, and Bush only got in twice by the skin of his teeth).

Obama won huge, deal with it.

Bush and Clinton look like electoral losers compared to Obama.

Ha, Clinton only got 43% and 49%(an unbelievable number) in his bid for re-election. Horrible numbers.

Clinton now looks like the shitty candidate he was.

Anyone not calling this a landslide is a liar and a fraud, and should be treated accordingly.

And integrity, please tell us just what that "landslide" translates into? What difference will it make? will it make Obama come out in favor of gay marriage for example? What particular policies will this "landslide" embolden him to pursue?

Aside from a few poorly worded statements (and remember the JTP statement was in the context of a 4% raise in the top marginal income tax rate--hardly a radical socialist concept), what policy proposals of Obama's are "socialist" (or more socialist than partially nationalizing some of our banks as GWB has done)?

Frankly, the constant excuse of poorly worded statements coming from the individual hailed as the greatest orator since Cicero is getting tiresome.

Raising taxes 4% or even 10% isn't in and of itself a socialist concept. If Obama stated that he would be raising taxes in order to reduce the deficit or improve the nation's ifrastructure than that's one thing. But when he states that he's going to raise my marginal rate another 4% so it can then be handed over to someone else to make their life easier, that starts to sound like socialism to me.

Just for the record, I agree that the bank bailouts are reprehensible and do not bode well for a free market. That being said, I don't think we need to continue down the path by taking more out of the pockets of one segment of society and handing it to another.

Great point, Arturius. Even my most liberal friends were surprised at the explanation of Obama's "tax cuts". They were uncomfortable with the direct redistribution of wealth - they still voted for him, though.

But McCain was woefully inept at explaining any of this. He needed Joe the Plumber, or he wasn't even going to come close. And that was too little, too late.

Roger J. said... And integrity, please tell us just what that "landslide" translates into? What difference will it make? will it make Obama come out in favor of gay marriage for example? What particular policies will this "landslide" embolden him to pursue?

Hopefully Obama will be respectful of it, not rub anyone's nose in it . And worry about getting the country back on track. Why must a landslide translate into ramming shitty policies down everybody's throat? He is wise, and unlike someone who was barely elected in both 2000 and 2004, I have not heard anyone in his camp claim a mandate. They could have and with a straight face, unlike Mr. Bush.

Wow, with no sleep, a hangover and provocation my venom awakes. It will be gone after a weekend of sleeping. I'm pooped.

IMHO, the acronym JTP is probably the most unexpected thing to come out of the 2008 election. You've really arrived once you have an acronym. Even Palin didn't get an acronym.

P.S.JTP is better than "wellfare king."

[I'm just poking a little fun, so all the outrage-mongers can step back and take a deep breath. Plus, I have rural roots. And, I have first hand experience with construction labor. So, I can poke a little fun at JTP's say/do inconsistencies w/o being a mean elitist.]

Anyone who is touting Sweden as a socialist model is really, really stupid because the country went through an economic disaster for quite a long time and now, under its no-longer-really new government, it has become very privatized.

If you are making the Sweden argument, you haven't been paying attention to the world, at all. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are a drooling moron who does not deserve to be heard.

2008 Index of Economic Freedom"Sweden's economy is 70.4 percent free, according to our 2008 assessment, which makes it the world's 27th freest economy. Its overall score is 1.4 percentage points higher than last year, reflecting improvements in trade freedom and financial freedom. Sweden is ranked 14th out of 41 countries in the European region, and its overall score is higher than the regional average."

The US is ranked fifth, Canada 7th.

Swedish Lessons for Post-Socialist Countries"What are then the main implications of the “Swedish case” for post-socialistcountries? Let me summarize them in six points.1. Those in post-socialist countries who suggest the adoption of Swedishstylewelfare arrangements should bear in mind that Sweden was a far wealthiersociety when it instituted such arrangements. Moreover, Sweden had alreadydeveloped a competent class of public-sector administrators as well as social normsof honest behavior among these.2. Strongly interventionist policies in Sweden, in particular generouswelfare-state arrangements, did accomplish important social goals – high incomesecurity, considerable income equality, little poverty. But this seems to have cameat the expense of a high and rising costs in terms of productivity and economicgrowth. Moreover, by the 1990s in connection with negative macroeconomicshocks, policies had become unsustainable. It is likely that the costs would be moreserious in post-socialists countries, given the relative low level of per capitaincome, and the more competitive international economic environment today.3. Tripartite bargaining, which has been an important element of policymakingin Hungary, Poland, and the Check Republic, has been much less importantin Sweden than generally believed by foreign observers. I has also been much lesssuccessful than reputed abroad. Real wages were not kept down, and fullemployment was not promoted, by concerted agreement of wage constraintbetween unions and firms in cooperation with the government. The maininstruments were instead periodic devaluations and increased public-sectoremployment. These mechanisms turned out to be unsustainable in the early 1990s.4. The Swedish experience suggests that people react more strongly whensomething is taken away than when they fail to achieve some new benefit -- inkeeping with theorems of prospect theory. This has made attempts to reform andrewind the welfare state very difficult in Sweden, and perhaps as well in societiessuch a Hungary and Poland. In post-socialist societies which have not establishedextensive welfare systems, it implies a need for caution.5. Eastern Europe, like Sweden, is likely to suffer from unstable rules of thegame – probably more so, given the uncertainties and depth of the transition.Sweden’s experiences suggest that this is a serious problem.6. Post-socialist countries should be aware that Sweden has experiencedconsiderable macroeconomic disruption because of mistakes in the sequencing ofreforms: most importantly, the de-regulations of domestic capital markets prior totax reform and the removal of foreign exchange controls. This illustrates theimportance of proper sequencing of reforms in transition economies."

BTW, you were right about DOMA but for the wrong reasons. It would not lose the Dems power to repeal it. But they are doubtless afraid of that. Far from governing from the far left (where do you find these people? ffs!), they are pretty spineless centrists, whose only goal seems to be to keep in clover.

Dr Zen said..."Here's what I don't get. If Ms Althouse is a "neutral" observer, how come the vast majority of her commenters are frothing-at-the-mouth screeching loony rightards? Curious."

Boy, you got that right. 95% of the people who frequent this site are no only wingnuts, they're incredibly uneducated and uninformed wingnuts. Almost everything you read here is just a repeat of what one can hear every day from Rush, Sean, Michael and Billo...and that's basically where they get 99% of their talking points. (And of course, most say they NEVER listen to any of them...right.)

Here's an interesting slant from a real Republican:

Craig Shirley, a conservative consultant, argued that the party needed "to start getting about the task of what they are for," and said of the RNC memos, "You got to pick your fights. It is almost like the RNC is in desperate need of adult supervision."

4. The Swedish experience suggests that people react more strongly when something is taken away than when they fail to achieve some new benefit

That is going to be our problem, post-obama. It is very difficult to roll back an unsustainable government give-away program once it is legislated. Both because of the defense from entrenched government employees and also from the folks who benefit from the give-away.